Yup, believe it or not. What a bitch.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/23/sp....ap/index.html

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins.

The three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the deal between Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson -- in which McKiernan donated his sperm and would not be obligated to pay any support -- was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles."

Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.

"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,"' wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.

McKiernan's attorney said he may appeal.

The decision could have implications for sperm and egg donors who expect anonymity, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Anybody who is a sperm donor ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced, and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support," he said Friday.

According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said.

McKiernan, who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling, but declined to comment further.

Ferguson's lawyer, Elizabeth Hoffman, said there was never evidence of an agreement between the two in which McKiernan would not have to pay any support.

"There was no evidence except his word and her word and it was a matter of credibility," he said.

<font color=skyblue>It is the fact that the law is siding with her that got me. Everybody in the world will try to make money one way or another, but the courts are supposed to be protecting us from these loonies...not feeding us to them.</font>

Well, you see Larry, it is quite simple. Its not a matter of protection, its all a matter of sympathy. Here you have a woman that lives alone with two children, the court is going to appeal to her because of her situation. But don't get me wrong, I still think this is screwed up.

I'm just wondering. Nobody has any proof that they really had a "verbal agreement"?

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">How terrible!!! The true crime here is haveing to pay child support without ever getting any booty.</font>

[ 07-27-2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Well, as pritchke so eloquently pointed out, the guy didn't get to become a "sperm donor" via the preferred method of "injection," and one can only assume the woman didn't ask him, "hey wanna be a patsy shill for me and your bastard baby for the next 18 years?"

I don't really understand why this man is ordered to pay up, while he has nothing to do with what the sperm bank does with his semen. I thought that women go to the sperm bank, they seek out healthy (or quality good) semen and help the woman get a baby. Wouldn't it be more realistic if the sperm bank would be the one paying up, instead of some unlucky bugger who just had the bad luck of seeing his sperm get into the wrong woman.

I'm not even starting on the American judicial system... :rolleyes: [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img] Anything's possible in a country where McDonald's gets sued by fat children because 'their food made them fat'.

"According to the trial judge's opinion, Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together and had a two-year affair. The relationship waned by late 1993, when Ferguson convinced McKiernan to act as a sperm donor with no responsibility for any child born as a result, the opinion said."

If you read the article you'd have seen that he wasn't an anonymous donor, they were people who had known, worked, and slept together for several years. No sperm bank was involved.

[ 07-28-2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

McDonald's won that specious case. You may also pick up a Wall Street Journal and note that in reaction to the case, McD's added several healthy menu choices -- and has seen sales rise 25% -- for real! [img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img]

What reasonable man would get a woman pregnant, the old fashioned way, on her oral promise that he would only be a sperm donor? Their relationship had gone bad, but she offers all the sex he wants until she gets pregnant, at which time, he can go his own way and never be responsible for the pregnancy in any way?

What the old saying? If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

He's either lying, he's an idiot, or both. My money is on both.

Hmm you know I think I donated a couple of $ to some charity the other day. That must mean that I now own a part of that company responsible for the charity! I think I'll demand a seat in the board...

Yepp, just ridiculous... [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

ROTFLMAO!!! When ever you violate the rules of life you pay one way or another.

As Ronn says "If it sounds to good to be true it is."

Here's a couple of other rules
1)Nothing is life is free, one way or another you pay for your actions.
2)A whole lot of life's problems can be avoided if you keep your pants zipped up and your legs crossed.

Well said Ronn/John. :D

Damn. So, that's my problem? See, John, I'd only been keeping my legs crossed. Didn't know I had to zip up my pants as well. [img]graemlins/doh.gif[/img]